Slashdot Mirror
Malaysia Uses Anti-Terrorism Laws To Stop Bloggers
Academiphiliac writes to mention the BBC reported in an article this morning that the Malaysian government may start using tough anti-terror laws to censor bloggers who insult either Islam or the country's king. "The move comes as one of Malaysia's leading online commentators has been questioned by police following a complaint by the main governing party. The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial. But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom."
Considering that most terrorists are Muslim, somewhat ironic that anti-terrorism laws are being used to silence those who "insult Islam." How else is Islam going to be civilized and reformed from within if criticism and debate on the state of Islam in the modern world is crushed in a major Muslim nation, Malaysia, keeping in mind most of the world's Muslims live in Asia?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
According to his latest blog entry, he has been released after 8 hrs, and the reason for his temp detention was comments made on the website
The Islamic terrorists are going to have a tough time figuring out where they stand on this: are they in favor because it punishes people who insult Islam or are they opposed because it's part of an anti-terrorism effort?
For that matter, the right-wing conservatives are also going to have a tough time with this: are they opposed because it punishes people who insult Islam (a favorite pastime of right-wing conservatives) or are they in favor because they reflexively support anything that falls under the guise of anti-terrorism?
The intent of the law doesn't matter one iota. What matters is what it allows. If it can be abused, then its very likely that it will be at some point. Even if the guys currently in charge use it responsibly, there is no guarantee that it will remain that way when leadership changes hands.
Of course, it's always disheartening to see things like this:
"I was alleged to have insulted the king, and also Islam and incite racial hatred, so I am going in there to reply to all these charges. I promise I'm going to give them a hell of a tough time," he told the BBC before he turned himself in.Freedom of speech, except for the speech we don't like. Somehow their assurances concerning the intent of the law don't give me much confidence.
The problem with insulting Islam is...
That it's far too easy to do!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
if I post a cartoon of me fucking Mohammed up the arse, that makes me a terrorist?
No, that makes you gay.
In case you were confused about that.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Two things immediately come to mind. Was this consensual? And were you wearing a Condom?
"I Love All the World's People" - John Lennon
You know, back in the days of the Cold War, it used to be that in the "West" Communists were feared. In the USSR, it was the "Spreaders of American Imperialism". It would seem that history is repeating itself, but with the added proviso of having a unified enemy. One that can literally be indistinguishable from the common person, and even more disturbing, cannot be defeated. Now, I know that is nothing new in this crowd, but think about it, a Communist can be defeated, I would say for the most part they have been. The USSR fell, Cuba has its own problems with Castro falling to old age, China a communist country in name, now has "capitalist zones" throughout -- Communism is a dead horse and it has been flogged to death.
Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism? Overthrow the state that the Terrorists occupy? Nope, look at Iraq. Do you put up a cute little "Terror Alert Scale"? Oh yeah, that was really effective! Nope, you can't "defeat it", and anyone saying you can has not thought enough about the concept. Regardless, however, it would seem that many (frivolous) laws are being put in place to combat terror, even in countries one wouldn't expect this in (Say Canada, for example...). What is perhaps scariest is that these laws will probably not go away quickly -- giving anyone who wants to abuse them more than enough chance to get away with it and cover up evidence.
By no means, am I advocating that there was some "master plan" by some Evil Genius(tm), instead I think it is just a general ideology that comes with the times. What disturbs me is in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws. While some might ultimately get repealed, most will not and some may even snowball into much bigger, much badder laws that essentially go from government monitoring, to Government Sanctioned Living(tm).
I am also not, by any means, saying that I have all the answers -- which always seemed like a cop out to me, to criticize without at least adding your own view and possible solution -- but I do have a couple of thoughts.
*Every law should have a sunset clause -- an expiration date, if you will. This would be an immutable amount of time (say five years), and the law would be required to be reviewed and passed through whatever checks and balances exist (if any). The law could of course be repealed, but it could not be extended anymore than 5 years from the date of review. This would still be open to abuse, but would certainly stop a lot of the stupid laws that stay on the books and are used solely for abusive purposes by law enforcement or Government Men (tm).
*Laws should be "subdivided" into categories. So laws dealing with "Terrorism" would all be put into that category and that way one could remove them from the system wholesale. No need to go hunting and pecking. Obviously, this too would present problems, but I think it would simply things.
*Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English. If the common man (and yes, I am inferring that the common man isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer") can't read it, it can't pass.
Anyway, yeah, pipe dream.
Lesson (which should have already been) learned: It doesn't matter what the law was intended to do, but rather what the law can be twisted to imply. If a law can be interpreted in a manner, it will be interpreted manner. That's the most important thing to understand from this article.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
The Bush administration is insulted on The Daily Show and Colbert Report almost every day. Comedy Central runs a cartoon show that does nothing but mock the administration. Plenty of people have, and still do, publicly protest against Bush. I realize that freedom of speech in America isn't what it used to be, and theres some serious threats to it. However, what you wrote (taking the context of the article into account) seems to imply that there is some sort of systematic persecution or detainment of those who criticize Bush, which isn't the case.
I mean, his approval rating is 30%. It sure doesn't seem like the populace is fearful of criticizing the Bush administration.
I'm sure any sane person would rather vote for a new government than take up arms and shoot people (and get shot at) to achieve a new government. It's just a matter of when "enough is enough", and enough people have decided it's time for the latter.
In western countries with representative democracies, we still have the faint hope that we can vote our way to a better government. As bad as Bush is, unless he decides to unilaterally declare himself dictator, or call off elections and declare himself President until he decides to step down, he's going to be out in 18 months.
And we still have things like freedom of speech, for the most part. There's some bad things, like the government being able to see which books I check out from the library without a warrant, but that's really nothing like being jailed indefinitely just for insulting a stupid religion.
In these other countries, things aren't like this. Not only can they be jailed for insulting a stupid religion, their government is a monarchy, so they can't ever change it.
But you are surely not in agreement with the principles of Sharia law? As in, everyone who doesn't believe in the correct magical superman is murdered by the State? You wouldn't want that in your own country, right?
Sharia law is evil in exactly the same sense that Communism and Nazism are evil. Exchange worship of a Stalin/Mao figure for a deity, and change a few economic policies, and you have exactly the same thing. People are required to think certain thoughts and adopt certain lifestyles, and punished by death if they do not. Any thinking person should be strongly opposed to such an idea. But then, all religions know how to brainwash people so that they cannot think critically about their own faith.
We criticise and challenge Christians about silly beliefs like Creationism, and Christians ignore us and go on believing what they want. Fine. We should criticise and challenge Muslims about their silly beliefs too. But (at least in my country) no-one dares to do that, because the Muslims won't just ignore it.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Actually, what I meant was changing all the leaders. You don't need to abolish the system of government to change the government itself. It happens here in America every 4 years, at least for the Executive Branch. Even with the same system in place (parliamentary in your case), all-new leaders can cancel old, bad laws and institute new, better laws (in theory anyway).
We do, actually.
I assure you that no US military unit would follow the orders of a president that refused to turn over power unilaterally. And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
More likely the scenario would be just like it has been in past Republics, the Senate/Congress would proclaim a dictator with the SCOTUS approving it, or a constitutional convention would simply change the rules completely and allow for a dictator.
That would be soemwhat more problematic because you would have some ligitimacy.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Huh? Sure we do, at least a lot more than most other countries.
First, there's the other branches of government. They don't have to go along with the President, especially since they control the purse-strings. That's how we finally got out of Vietnam, remember.
Second, there's the military. The President can't stay in power, in contravention of the Constitution, without support from the military. Most countries are this way, since the military usually has all the guns.
Lastly, there's the citizens. Many of us are armed, unlike in many other countries. The military may be powerful, but it's nowhere near as large as the citizenry. And Iraq is showing us every day exactly how effective guerrilla insurgents with improvised explosives and small arms can be against the world's most powerful military force. Besides, it's not likely most of the military would voluntarily go against their own countrymen.
Headline: "Malaysia Uses..."
/.
Article: "The Malaysian government may..."
TF(BBC)A: "The Malaysian government has warned that it could..."
When I had to listen to it on shortwave, BBC was a great alternative to the then already groupthink polluted US media. Now it's Fox News with British accents. Despite their Reynolds Wrap hard hats, some people think this happens on purpose, forced by some shadowy puppet governments or government puppets. This example shows how it happens due only to inattention to detail, and desire to make a point, even here on
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Saying something remotely critical of Islam doesn't make you right wing or conservative. And saying that all right wing conservatives do X because that is your fucked up world view is just as stupid.
The vast majority of right wing conservatives don't care what religion you are. I will give you a hint, they aren't the ones in government prefacing every American with a descriptive word like African in order to separate them from clean white crackers either. I think you have the roles backwards, confused and in general, all fucked up. Maybe you should step back and look around a little more.
... I'd better not go to Malaysia. Ever. But I believe in free speech, damnit.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
By not letting yourself be perpetually terrified.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
If the people that I know in the military are any indication, then the day a President unilaterally declares himself king/emperor/dictator for life is the day that some missiles are "accidentally" launched at said dictator. There are a lot of military folks who take that "uphold the Constitution" part of their duty very very seriously.
And the most important question - Are you doing it through a hole in a sheet?
Missiles are overkill. Some guy with a deer rifle can cover the president for life scenario.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
At least in Britain, you can make fun of the Queen, her inbred cheating son, and the Church of England. (Damn, who was that comic, years ago, missing a finger, used to do all sorts of jokes about it?)
At least in the U.S., you can make fun of Bushy, Dick "No, not in the face!" Cheney, Pinch Faced Pelosi, The Baptists, Mormons, and Stogey Boy Clinton.
At least in Canada, you can make fun of...eh, oh sorry, I'm being informed by the Canadian Ministry of Nicey Nice that it is not tolerated to make fun of anyone except those who are intolerant...oh, wait, no, that's not allowed either.
Well, at least we have the first two.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Religions at their best work as social glue and when not under threat the business of civilization can proceed. Also since the Islamic empire of those days stretched far and wide, and trade thrived, such advances came about quite naturally. Currently with that empire broken up (often in terrible ways due to former European empires carving them up unnaturally), terrible inequality magnified by western interests in oil and ultimately threats (real or perceived) from non-Islamic forces radicalized religious figures gain support. Moderation thrives best when security exists. Why don't more most fundamentalist Christians blow up abortion clinics. Likely because they have a good life and when it comes down to it it's more important than God.
Reminds me of an 80s joke....
In the USA, you can come before the White House and shout curses against Ronald Reagan.
In the USSR, you can come before the Kremlin and shout curses against Ronald Reagan.
Circumcision is child abuse.
"The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial."
It's a good thing America doesn't do anything like that, right?
Oh, wait.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Or just cancel old, bad laws, new laws be damned. It's not like they HAVE to replace every shitty restriction imposed on the public with another, perhaps slightly less shitty, restriction.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Well, no. Islam got its big start when the Prophet began to conquer pretty much everything he could reach. It continued in that vein till it met something that could stop it. It was rolled up and subsumed by various flavours of Mongol conquerors, which resulted in the destruction of that "enlghtened" Islam you seem to think existed from the beginning. Remember that Sharia Law applied from the very beginning of Islam.
A frequently made assumption by Americans and (some) Europeans is that "Freedom" is desired by virtually all people everywhere. History does not seem to support that contention, really. Sharia Law worked quite well for centuries in the Islamic world. In many ways, it still does. Personally, I'm none too fond of the parts of Sharia that reduce to Dress Codes, but then we must remember that Sumptuary Laws (AKA Dress Codes) existed in many societies throughout History, including most European countries during the Renaissance. Prostitutes must wear red shoes is not, after all, a Muslim idea.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think the greatest asset we have in the US to prevent the creation of a dictatorship is inertia. Can you imagine how much work it would be to restructure the Federal government into a fully top-down model. Think of the practical implications of cutting out the representative channels. Who would answer to whom? How would federal administrative law function? Who would fill the non-representative duties of today's congressmen?
A dictatorship would be laughed out of Washington if it wasn't preceded by enormous amounts of planning. If we couldn't manage a state of emergency in a single city after Katrina, how could we manage a state of emergency in an entire layer of government--let alone the country.
We are closer to a totalitarian state; more so now, but we were under Clinton as well. And my point is not Clinton versus Bush, it is to note that technological capabilities really bloomed for the Government under Clinton and have only increased. Due to enhanced technology, it is no longer as labor or resource intensive to listen on your calls, monitor your surfing, or fly over and determine your ambient energy output. (And by your, I mean YOU or ME. Not all of us collectively but each individual in the collective whole. Kinda scary, actually.)
The US really needs to have a frank dialog and discussion to decide how much permission we want to give our Government to observe and control us under the guise of the public good. Any approach to the subject has, so far, been based too much in partisan politics and too little in addressing the foundational issue of what kind of society we want given the capabilities of enhanced technology.
I believe that things will only get increasingly repressive until this discussion occurs and politicians have impressed upon their consciousness the difference between can and should where technology exists.
He was called Dave Allen.
)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Allen_(comedian
I used to see him when I worked in Kensington, late 80s, early 90s. He stayed near RBK&C offices just off Kensington High St.
Personally I think of Islam as currently being in the place where Christianity was hundreds of years ago. You know - crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, and all that other neat stuff.
And the closest thing we have to a Praetorian Guard, the Secret Service is not large enough to pull off a coop.
Probably because they're too chicken.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
That Carlin quote comes from this routine about religion. If you haven't seen it, it's very funny, and well worth a watch imo.
It makes you a blasphemer, for which the traditional punishment under Islamic law is death.
President Bush has declared himself dictator. He's had his people say that they are beyond any oversight by Congress, and that any attempt by Congress to prosecute them for contempt of Congress when they fail to testify or produce materials that Congress deems it requires for its Constitutionally-mandated oversight duties will be blocked when it's referred on to the Justice Department for enforcement. That's all a dictatorship is - authority in a single office and individual without check.
Okay, he hasn't said his dictatorship is for life yet. No need to do that until shortly before he's supposed to hand over power to the next president. Who knows, if by miracle a Republican is elected, maybe he'll go ahead and pass on the dictatorship. Will that make your military friends happy enough?
Even if Hillary steps into office after him, in a smooth transition, as things stand she'll be inheriting the dictatorial powers his people have seized for the office. Will your military friends be content to let her march them off to ill-conceived wars on the far side of nowhere, absent any power left to our Senators and Congresspersons to oversee or check her schemes?
No offense to the military, but if they're patriots, they're working out detailed plans to "accidentally" launch something in the very near future. Dictatorships are no more "declared" these days than wars are. Instead, we just slip into them like something comfortable.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
This is too easy.
It's simple: Muslim nations aren't threatening us in any credible way. Except for Afghanistan with OBL/Al Qaeda; but we took care of that to a good extent with a relatively small amount of military force, and we had been attacked, so there was obvious justification. It didn't take a gigantic invasion to topple the Taliban, since they were little more than a rag-tag terrorist organization posing as a government.
Turning inward is the correct and moral way to deal with outsiders, unless they specifically threaten you. If you hear your neighbors fighting, and it sounds like the husband is beating the wife, do you run over there with your guns brandished to "fix" the problem? Of course not. Call the police maybe if it sounds too bad, but otherwise mind your own business. Now if one of your neighbors is running around threatening to kill everyone on the block who doesn't pay him tribute, then it might be time to make him "disappear", but that's a different situation. Attempting to get involved in other peoples' situations generally just makes them (victim included) hate you, as any cop who's responded to a domestic call will tell you.
It's the same with countries. If you don't like the way other countries operate, that's just too bad. Only the citizens of that country have any say in the internal workings of their country. Now if they start threatening you (and perhaps your allies), then it's time to do something, but this really doesn't happen that often. WWII was an exceptional time. Germany and Japan were aggressors, attempting to build empires and force other countries to their will. Obviously, standing by and watching isn't a good idea because their demonstrated lust for power isn't going to stop at your country's border, so you have to take out the threat when it's still small enough to be manageable.
We haven't seen many actions like those in WWII in a long time, except by the US. And at least Japan and Germany were brutally honest about their power-seeking aspirations, unlike the US which makes up BS stories about "liberation" and "WMD" when it really just wants control over oil.
The modern way is to make all up sorts of ludicrous excuses (that are just about believable) why the constitution doesn't apply to you (uhh...Bush wouldn't..oh...ye...nevermind) and rig the election (but I really can't see anyone being audacious enough to rig an election to get Bush in...oh...ye...nevermind).
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Governor Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.
General Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?
Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.
or something like that...
Check out this scary site:
The Truth About Islam
http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com/
They're really like ORCS, aren't they?
This is one of the articles that caused it all
i d=6714#c
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/holds.php?item
Communism isn't in and of it self evil, it is usually the totalitarian regime that enforces it.
But you can't have Communism without a totalitarian regime. As Marx realised, if ordinary people have a choice in the matter, they will prefer to take a bigger slice of the capitalist pie, rather than give up their "bourgeois freedoms" like the right to own property and choose their own occupations. So Communism has to be forced on people "for their own good", and the only type of government that can do that is a 1984/Stalin/Mao-style arrangement with regular purges of dissidents.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?